City of Ashland, Oregon / City Recorder / City Council Information / Packet Archives / Year 2004 / 05/04 / Charter Review / Attach. II
Attach. II
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN
CORE ELEMENTS
February 2000
INTRODUCTION
Ashland, like other American cities, is aware of a changing environment that
requires new ways of doing business. A new, more collaborative style of
decision-making is not only required, but results in better decisions. Problems
are increasingly complex, expensive to address, and require multifaceted
solutions. Getting people of different perspectives together to talk about
problems and potential solutions is essential. Collaboration has the highest
potential for building long-term and well-supported solutions. While it can
be frustrating and messy, drawing upon new skills and patience, it is
indispensable, and the City needs a process that will maximize its benefits.
Better government decisions depend on effective government, and a collaborative
government can serve as the leader and partner to developing long-term solutions
to problems. This requires a serious commitment from everyone involved to
embrace the change toward collaborative decision making and learn together
how to make it work.
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
The goal of this Citizen Participation Plan is to provide a menu of choices
for including citizens' voices in decision making. Residents of the City
of Ashland are typically educated about issues, outspoken in their opinions,
and involved in shaping decisions. The City of Ashland encourages its public
officials and employees to engage with its citizens. Therefore, citizens
often enjoy good working relationships with staff and decision-makers. This
Plan offers participation processes that will continue to build on the solid
interaction between citizens and City management.
Democracy relies on engagement by citizens as a means of forming better solutions
to civic matters. Citizen participation processes must be inclusive of those
who identify themselves as interested and/or affected by decisions that will
be made on issues of relevance to them. Citizen participation practices must
result in decisions that reflect the community's voices.
Citizen participation is not a substitute for decision-making by the City,
but a very important influence on it. Shared decision-making is not a cure
for conflict because it does not mean the final decision will make everyone
happy. It lets everyone know the reasons for a decision in the hope that
all or most participants will accept that decision, even if they do not agree
with it.
Major Principles-
Citizen participation should result in: Trust between government and
citizens Informed judgements about City activities Face-to-face deliberation
Decisions that reflect a thorough consideration of community issues and
perspectives Transparent and trackable decisions with stated accountabilities
Common understanding of issues and appreciation for complexity
Public participation is a process which allows City government to engage
with the public to jointly: Increase understanding of issues Determine
possible options Generate new ideas Discover and explore possible compromises
Gauge the greater public's support for various solutions
Successful citizen participation requires: Genuine intent and attitude
by the City and its citizens to engage in a public process to help make better
decisions A clearly defined process that identifies participant roles A variety
of ways to participate and influence decisions That it occur early enough
in the process to influence the outcome Effective communication throughout
the process, including identification of assumptions about the issue, disclosing
rationale for one's opinions, and being willing to consider the merit in
others' opinions Identifying and inviting people who are affected or interested
in the issue to be part of the process That dialog and deliberation be a
part of the process That all participants work hard, listen to all sides,
and attempt to understand opposing viewpoints Considering the "public good"
perspective on all issues, especially when personal interests differ
CITIZEN EXPECTATIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES
A fair, respectful, and open process which allows all who are affected or
interested to have an equal opportunity to participate Clear, complete and
straightforward information from the City and other presenters To be involved
early enough in the process to influence the outcome To work hard at learning
about the issue, listening to all perspectives, attempting to understand
opposing viewpoints, trying to reach compromise on difficult issues, and
to consider the "public good" perspective on all issues Follow-up to their
involvement by receiving information about the final decisions and why it
was made To be able to be part of the solution and to define a role in
implementation as is appropriate
ELECTED OFFICIALS ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
Recognize the benefits of citizen involvement and serve as an advocate for
its use Provide resources and support City staff initiative in utilizing
public participation processes Decide the citizen involvement process that
will be used before the process is initiated Define the decision-making process
and the roles that respective parties will play Identify elements of the
issue that may not be conducive to open process Assist in issue scoping Provide
clear delegations of responsibilities between elected officials and City
staff, where appropriate Ensure that citizens are aware of the opportunities
to participate throughout the prescribed process Assist citizens to work
hard to understand the issues, respect opposing viewpoints, work for good
solutions and help to define the "public good" Honor the spirit of the process
as it is proceeding and respect the ambiguous nature of the process Be informed
about the process and engage where appropriate to ensure the goals of the
process Fulfill their role as decision-maker according to the selected type
of citizen involvement process being used Evaluate the effectiveness of each
public involvement process
CITY STAFF ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
Recognize the benefits of citizen involvement and serve as advocate for its
use Inform themselves of the efficacy and appropriateness of public involvement
processes that may be useful in specific applications of their department's
work program Ensure that resources are adequate for staff's role in conducting
the process Provide citizen involvement training to staff Utilize performance
incentives that build and foster capacity for success in public involvement
Engage with the public as partners in the design and execution of the public
involvement strategy Help design and carry out the public involvement process
in a way that most effectively ensures success Evaluate the effectiveness
of each public involvement process Ensure that informational needs of the
project are fulfilled To try and identify and involve as many affected or
interested citizens as possible by designing a process that goes out to the
people and is easy to become involved in
PHASES OF THE PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROCESS
Step 1 - Issue Generation Phase
Issues derive from a multiplicity of sources: the City Council, City staff,
or citizen commissions may identify problems or opportunities. Federal or
state agencies or other governmental bodies can introduce new laws, regulations,
or even funding opportunities that initiate municipal action. Community members
often raise issues or suggestions for activity meant to improve quality of
life.
Step 2 - Issue Identification Phase
This is the phase at which formal action begins through the scoping, or defining
the aspects of an issue or opportunity by the appropriate body. The outcomes
from this phase are a clear definition of the problem, the information and
date that is compiled, a preliminary list of those who we could predict would
have a perceived interest in the outcome (stakeholders), and the history
of the issue or opportunity.
Step 3 - Identification of Process Parameters Phase
If an issue is totally non-negotiable (that is, there is no way to alter
what must be done), it is not suitable for public participation. With City
issues, this is rarely the case, and usually the flexibility of decisions
is suitable for public decision-making.
There are instances where some elements of a public decision making process
are non-negotiable. These elements usually are moral, ethical, legal, safety
or financial issues. The non-negotiable aspects of a decision process should
be clearly stated at the outset of designing the public involvement process.
It is important to note that these parameters must not be merely preferences.
Citizens may challenge these items, and the City must have defensible reasons
excluding them from the process.
Step 4 - Clarifying Decision-Makers Phase
There needs to be a statement of whom has final authority to make the decision.
This is a policy call by the City, and it is vitally important that everyone
know at the outset who has final decision-making authority.
Step 5 - Goals and Timeline Determination Phase
In this phase, the real or anticipated constraints on the process are identified,
such as time limitations, costs, staff availability, technical complexity,
public interest and political climate, and the size and nature of stakeholder
groups. The deliberating body considers the types of processes that would
be appropriate to the situation, given the constraints and needs. The outcomes
of this phase are the project goals, the benchmarks and timeline under which
it is expected to be implemented, and the assignment of responsibilities.
Step 6 - Citizen Participation Process Determination Phase
Depending on the type of issue that is being considered there are many different
ways to engage citizens. If this issue requires individual judgement or opinions,
focus group interviews, random sample surveys, response forms, newspaper
inserts, or direct mail can be used. If the issue requires community problem
solving, workshops, charrettes, open houses and discussion forums can be
used. Complicated and technical issues might best use advisory or ad hoc
committees, a series of workshops or open houses, or working with existing
organizations. The outcome of this phase is the public participation process
plan.
Step 7 - Laying the Foundation and Informational Gathering Phase
It is important for the people who will be involved in this phase to begin
by clarifying the problem or charge they have been asked to address and the
tasks that will be required to meet their goals. If a group is involved,
it will also need to define and/or adopt the behavioral guidelines under
which they will operate. This phase will likely involve compiling information,
perhaps even educating other members of the community on the issue. Depending
on the issue, people may learn and gain insight into other or new perspectives.
If it is anticipated that the task phase will continue for very long, those
involved may develop a plan for communicating its progress to decision-makers
and interested parties.
Step 8 - Launch the Process Phase
If the steps up to this point are done well and the process is started with
a positive attitude, chances for success are enhanced. Clarifying the issues
early in situations of potential conflict can help to lower the sensitive
nature of this issue. By including people who may feel threatened by the
outcome of the issue and allowing them to help build the process, chances
for a successful outcome can be greatly improved. It is important to cast
the net as widely as possible so that as many people as possible are aware
of the opportunities to become involved. Initial outreach should always
communicate the problem as we know it, the decision parameters, the process,
the preliminary timelines of the project, and the various ways to become
involved. These themes must be stressed in all subsequent communications
and information materials.
Between Steps 1 & 8 - Check and Feedback Phase
Before moving from each of the first eight phases, it is important to double
check results with decision-makers and stakeholders. This serves the purpose
of checking in to see whether new information has become available, laws
have changed, a new set of stakeholders or perspectives have emerged. If
not, the process moves forward. If there has been a shift, the process is
reviewed for its adequacy.
Step 9 - Project Completion Phase
Throughout the remainder of the project, it is important to communicate often
and clearly with citizen participants, elected officials, other City staff
members, general citizens, the news media and other affected agencies. Always
err on the side of too much communication rather than err on the side of
too little. The project will usually end up with a recommendation, decision,
report or some other end product. Make sure this is widely distributed to
all of the above mentioned parties also.
Step 10 - Decision-Making Phase
In this phase, those charged with making final decisions review the outcome
of the Project Completion phase and act upon it. This could involve acceptance
and/or revisions of the product. The decision and the rationale behind it
are communicated to the public.
Step 11 - Implementation Phase
The outcome of the decision-making phase is implemented.
Step 12 - Evaluation Phase
In order to promote and refine our collective learning from these processes,
it is essential that we evaluate the efficacy of both the public participation
process utilized and the eventual outcome of the decision-making process.
The experiences of those directly involved in the process need to be collected
through a process or people who can be objective in the task. It is also
important, depending on the scale of the process, to collect the opinions
or experience of those who were not directly involved. The evaluations need
to be documented, shared with decision-makers and maintained in a manner
that makes them accessible for public review.
End of Document - Back to Top
|